Chinese Satellite killers. Isn't this a tad bit hypocritical?

[Bruce]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070118/pl_nm/china_usa_satellitekiller_dc

The United States, Australia and Canada have voiced concerns to China over a test in space of a satellite-killing weapon last week, the White House said on Thursday.

"The U.S. believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "We and other countries have expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese."

Using a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile, the test knocked out an aging Chinese weather satellite about 537 miles above the earth on January 11 through "kinetic impact," or by slamming into it, Johndroe said.

Canada and Australia had joined in voicing concern, he said.

Satellite technology is a huge strategic advantage of "civilized" countries over "3rd World" countries. This is the sort of technology that allows us to use high tech weapontry to take out thousands of targets at once without losing any lives or even getting our hands dirty.

I'm certain that our military already has multiple satellite-killing technologies that have been throughly tested. If China wants to have their version of these toys and test them on their own property, so what?

I don't view this in the same way as nuclear weapontry, which nobody ought to test or use for obvious reasons, but testing of conventional weapons is something every super-power country does all the time. Anyone else have an opinion?

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070118/pl_nm/china_usa_satellitekiller_dc
Satellite technology is a huge strategic advantage of "civilized" countries over "3rd World" countries. This is the sort of technology that allows us to use high tech weapontry to take out thousands of targets at once without losing any lives or even getting our hands dirty.

I'm certain that our military already has multiple satellite-killing technologies that have been throughly tested. If China wants to have their version of these toys and test them on their own property, so what?

I don't view this in the same way as nuclear weapontry, which nobody ought to test or use for obvious reasons, but testing of conventional weapons is something every super-power country does all the time. Anyone else have an opinion?

China isn't a third world country, if it ever was. It was at one point second world, thanks to being part of the Comintern. It is now an industrial powerhouse.

See the Washington Conference, one of a number of armament control attempts that eventually lead to things like "the demilitarizaiton of space" topic, which has been a concern since Sputnik first went up.

I'd also offer the ABM treaty as an attempt to stop an arms race. What is at hand is looking into the future and seeing a multi party, not two party, space arms race. Given the track record with the conventional arms races, and the nuclear arms races, there is perhaps reason to view a space arms race with trepidation.

Now, look at the Washington Conference and the ABM treaty, as well as the NPT, and consider how effective they were, or have been. Scraps of paper for fifty, Alex. I deem that the effort to curb the space arms race will be equally effective, or rather, ineffective, thanks to China being a veto wielding member of the UNSC.

DR
ETA:
trepidation n. "A state of alarm or dread; apprehension. See synonyms at fear"

Perhaps I should have used apprehension instead.

 

[fuelair]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070118/pl_nm/china_usa_satellitekiller_dc



Satellite technology is a huge strategic advantage of "civilized" countries over "3rd World" countries. This is the sort of technology that allows us to use high tech weapontry to take out thousands of targets at once without losing any lives or even getting our hands dirty.

I'm certain that our military already has multiple satellite-killing technologies that have been throughly tested. If China wants to have their version of these toys and test them on their own property, so what?

I don't view this in the same way as nuclear weapontry, which nobody ought to test or use for obvious reasons, but testing of conventional weapons is something every super-power country does all the time. Anyone else have an opinion?

Might be hypocritical, but I have a preferance for us having as big a monopoly on stuff like this as possible.

 

[BPSCG]

Might be hypocritical, but I have a preferance for us having as big a monopoly on stuff like this as possible.

Seconded. I don't trust pieces of paper to protect me. I believe in peace through superior firepower.

And so do the Chinese. They aren't doing this (plus lighting up our satellites with lasers) as a mere academic exercise. They intend to be able to do something with this technology someday, if it becomes necessary.

Chronic pessimist I occasionally read worries about the following scenario: After China develops intercontinental nuclear capability, Chinese foreign minister calls in U.S. ambassador. "We are going to invade Taiwan tomorrow. We are prepared to lose two or three cities over it, if necessary. How many are you prepared to lose?"

 

[Garrette]

Seconded. I don't trust pieces of paper to protect me. I believe in peace through superior firepower.

And so do the Chinese. They aren't doing this (plus lighting up our satellites with lasers) as a mere academic exercise. They intend to be able to do something with this technology someday, if it becomes necessary.

Chronic pessimist I occasionally read worries about the following scenario: After China develops intercontinental nuclear capability, Chinese foreign minister calls in U.S. ambassador. "We are going to invade Taiwan tomorrow. We are prepared to lose two or three cities over it, if necessary. How many are you prepared to lose?"

The proper tough guy response could only be:

That is irrelevant. You should be asking how many we are willing to destroy over it. I assure you it is more than three.

 

[BPSCG]

The proper tough guy response could only be:

That is irrelevant. You should be asking how many we are willing to destroy over it. I assure you it is more than three.

Yes, that would be the proper response today. I'm not optimistic that it would be a credible one twenty or thirty years from now.

 

[Garrette]

Yes, that would be the proper response today. I'm not optimistic that it would be a credible one twenty or thirty years from now.

Are you suggesting that our leaders are not sufficiently forward-thinking?

 

[Beerina]

Seconded. I don't trust pieces of paper to protect me. I believe in peace through superior firepower.

And so do the Chinese. They aren't doing this (plus lighting up our satellites with lasers) as a mere academic exercise. They intend to be able to do something with this technology someday, if it becomes necessary.

Chronic pessimist I occasionally read worries about the following scenario: After China develops intercontinental nuclear capability, Chinese foreign minister calls in U.S. ambassador. "We are going to invade Taiwan tomorrow. We are prepared to lose two or three cities over it, if necessary. How many are you prepared to lose?"

The correct response would be, "You are incorrect. You must be prepared to lose two thousand cities. There's the door. Good day."

 

[Katana]

Japan and Britain have entered into the concern-expressing.

Link

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm certain that our military already has multiple satellite-killing technologies that have been throughly tested. If China wants to have their version of these toys and test them on their own property, so what?

It's not simply their posession of such technology that's the problem. There's also the issue of debris. This test dramatically increased the amount of dangerous debris in orbit, significantly increasing the risk to other satellites. That is bad for everyone.

 

[BPSCG]

Are you suggesting that our leaders are not sufficiently forward-thinking?

Yes.

And our people, as a whole, have no vision that extends out beyond the middle of this week.

The Chinese, OTOH, are used to thinking in terms of decades or centuries. China is physically about the size of the U.S., is as rich in natural resources, has three or four times the population, is turning out scientists and engineers at a rate far faster than we are, has a capitalist economy and has an oligarchic government that does not let legal or ethical concerns hamstring the pursuit of what they perceive to be in their country's best geopolitical interests. It's the last that troubles me.

 

[Beerina]

You forgot that in about 10-20 years, there'll be a 1.3 to 1 ration of young males to young females, leading to a hundred million angry young men.

 

[geni]

Seconded. I don't trust pieces of paper to protect me. I believe in peace through superior firepower.

Been tried doesn't work.

Chronic pessimist I occasionally read worries about the following scenario: After China develops intercontinental nuclear capability, Chinese foreign minister calls in U.S. ambassador. "We are going to invade Taiwan tomorrow. We are prepared to lose two or three cities over it, if necessary. How many are you prepared to lose?"

China has ICBMs. The issue with Taiwan is how much it would cost china to win. The answer is likely quite a high number.

If china thought it could win quickly and cleanly it would probably invade. A drawn out conflict is more of a problem.

 

[geni]

I'm certain that our military already has multiple satellite-killing technologies that have been throughly tested.

Doubtful. Oh its got the tech but the number of tests have been fairly limited and ended decades ago.

If China wants to have their version of these toys and test them on their own property, so what?

Do they own the orbit they just rendered un-useable?

I don't view this in the same way as nuclear weapontry, which nobody ought to test or use for obvious reasons

What is wrong with underground tests?

 

[Bruce]

Do they own the orbit they just rendered un-useable?

I didn't know about the un-useable orbit thing.

What we really need now is a giant space net.

 

[TheChadd]

If China wants to have their version of these toys and test them on their own property, so what?

Exactly, the only reason why China is building up such weaponry is due to the threats from the US. New nuclear weapons, a slow abandonment of the NPT, showing that they're more than willing to go to war on the basis of nothing... If I was China I'd be doing the same thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly, the only reason why China is building up such weaponry is due to the threats from the US. New nuclear weapons, a slow abandonment of the NPT, showing that they're more than willing to go to war on the basis of nothing... If I was China I'd be doing the same thing.

To claim they're only doing this because of OUR agressive stance is to be blind to the issue they are most likely to come to blows with us over, and an issue in which THEY would be the agressor: Taiwan.

 

[TheChadd]

To claim they're only doing this because of OUR agressive stance is to be blind to the issue they are most likely to come to blows with us over, and an issue in which THEY would be the agressor: Taiwan.

I don't think they're only doing it because of US aggression but I do think China (and also the US) sees themselves comming head to head in the fairly recent future and not over Taiwan either.

 

[Rasmus]

Do they own the orbit they just rendered un-useable?

No, but as long as nobody else owns it, either, who's to say that can't litter it?

I agree, of course, that they shouldn't... but that would be just my opinion.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think they're only doing it because of US aggression but I do think China (and also the US) sees themselves comming head to head in the fairly recent future and not over Taiwan either.

I see no other likely cause for direct war between China and the US. So what do you think China forsees as a more likely cause for conflict?